Trevor Sargent
Question:1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the level of recycling taking place in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8690/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Recycling Policy.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:2 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if there are guidelines for recycling within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11933/05]
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the procedures in place in his Department for recycling; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12841/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
My Department follows best practice in recycling and our policy is expressed in our 2003 Annual Report in which it is stated that "The Department continues to seek out and avail of opportunities to recycle waste and, wherever possible, to use recycled paper".
All paper and cardboard waste from my Department is recycled. Paper waste is disposed of through a private contractor. For security reasons, I do not wish to disclose the name of the company. This contractor also removes cardboard free of charge for recycling.
Our current suppliers, Toshiba Ireland, who comply with the EC directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, WEEE, and the EC directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, RoHS, on the disposal of photocopiers, remove redundant photocopiers.
In recent years, my Department has had three main areas of IT equipment disposals, as follows: empty toner cartridges are boxed and collected by a company called Ergo Services for recycling. As part of this arrangement, Ergo Services donates a sum for each toner cartridge returned to it for recycling to a charity; hardware that is still useable but not good enough for more recent applications is made available for re-use — in 2003 and 2004, a number of PCs were disposed of to staff in my Department, for a nominal fee, while others were given, free of charge, to a charity called PCs for Africa and to schools-community groups; and hardware that could not be reused was disposed of in 2004 to a company called Systems 2000, following a tendering process. This comprised 62 monitors, 42 PCs, 11 laptops, 12 printers, 47 keyboards, one scanner and two routers. None of this equipment was of any further practical use.
Glassco Recycling recycles glass waste for the Department. We are in the process of putting in place arrangements to recycle cans and plastic bottles. Old mobile phones are disposed of to Temple Street Hospital for use for charitable purposes. Dublin City Council removes general waste. We are continually reviewing the possibility of increasing the amount of such waste that can be disposed of by recycling.
I ask this question after my colleague, Deputy Cuffe, asked each Department about various details of their policy on waste management. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether he regards it extraordinary that his Department, which is one of the smallest Departments with approximately 200 core staff, would create 104 tonnes of waste paper, which is approximately half a tonne per person? Other Departments appear to produce less. The Department of Transport produced 45 tonnes of waste paper; the Department of Foreign Affairs, 27 tonnes and the Department of Social and Family Affairs, which the Minister will agree is a large Department, produced 140 tonnes of waste paper for recycling.
There is a great deal of work going on there.
Given that the Taoiseach has not given an overall figure for the total amount of waste produced in his Department, is there a possibility of reducing the level of waste paper? While he referred to best practice, he has not yet put in place facilities for recycling cans or plastic bottles, which constitute a large amount of waste throughout the country. Will he indicate what progress has been made since the last reply was given and if he has taken on board the need for better recycling infrastructure, given the closure of Smurfitts and the Irish Glass Bottle Company?
The Deputy has been making a statement since he began giving information in the House.
I was asking a question.
The Deputy should confine himself to questions. The question refers specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
The Ceann Comhairle interrupted me only when I referred to Smurfitts and the Irish Glass Bottle Company.
I did not hear the Deputy mention either of them.
I did and I do not wish to repeat them. Given that the level of waste in the Taoiseach's Department is considerably larger proportionately than in other Departments, will he indicate any improvements in that regard?
All the measures being taken in the different areas in regard to waste paper and cardboard, amounting to 104,000 kg, have been in place for a long time. I referred to glass and cans, which are already being dealt with. Efforts are being made to try to reduce and recycle waste as much as possible, which has been the policy of the Department for several years. We must ensure that waste disposal is carried out in line with best practice. I assure the Deputy that efforts are being made to deal efficiently with the issue and to try to continually reduce the amount of waste.
The e-Cabinet system throughout all Departments will reduce the need for a large amount of paper. This is already working quite well in that everything does not have to be replicated 40 times. This is having an impact each month as people begin to have more confidence in the system. Perhaps it will take another few years, but it will continue to make a big difference to the amount of paper that goes through the Cabinet secretariat, which creates a large volume of paper. It is writing up the system in that regard. It is being recycled but it is a question of doing so in a formal way. My Department, other than the staff, use it, but we do not have a great volume in that regard.
Will the Taoiseach note that these questions are timely given the publication today of an EU report that highlights, once again, the failure of this State to properly manage its waste? Does he agree the Government in general, and his Department in particular, have a responsibility to take the lead in this regard?
Given the significant number of hard copies of reports that Deputies and Senators receive almost on a daily basis, and certainly on a weekly basis, does he agree that such documentation would be better offered on-line? Will he initiate a process whereby his Department will take the lead in this area by offering each Deputy and Senator such reports on-line or notifying them of their publication such that they will be available to them on request? Does the Taoiseach recognise that I am proposing this because, in the case of reports received by many Deputies, whose job may not be to focus on the particular issues addressed in them, they are either gathering dust on shelves or are dumped? Sadly, I suspect this occurs in many cases. Does the Taoiseach agree that his Department can and should take the lead regarding a very programmatic and determined effort to reduce the very high volume of printed reports, thereby setting an example for other Departments and society in the wider context?
The Deputy raised a number of points. Most of the reports issued by the Department, including the social partnership reports, the annual reports and SMI reports, are published on the website straight away. However, I take the Deputy's point that this should be the case for all reports. On the issue of printing, there is a long tradition whereby hard copies are created of all the reports, including annual reports. They are circulated not only to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas but also to many others throughout the country. I am sure they are looked at very attentively in many cases but it is probable that the majority are not. That is probably a valid point. I will check with my Department whether it publishes every report on-line. I have no difficulty doing that.
Projects such as the e-Cabinet project represent the best approach. I am told by colleagues that 5 kg less paper per Minister are coming to Government because of the e-Cabinet project. As it is extended over a number of years, as is intended, it will have a significant impact. I do not know about the merits of stopping the production of hard copies as I believe it leads to difficulties. In some areas, advertisements state that if one wants a report, one can seek it. I suppose that is the way things will move into the future.
On the Department's recycling policy, does the Taoiseach have any idea where the Department's waste goes? Does any of it end up in Northern Ireland, to which 250,000 tonnes of waste are sent from this city? What is the procedure regarding used toner cartridges from photocopying machines in the Department? Are they sent to a particular collection point or distributed to charities? Some agencies receive remuneration in this regard. Considering that the Taoiseach is in favour of e-government, does he have a view on the problem that arises from extensive packaging? When one considers the amount of packaging placed on the streets in our towns for disposal, by way of recycling or otherwise, one will realise the problem of recycling waste is as much a problem of packaging as anything else. The amount of packaging left on the streets for disposal by either recycling or collection reveals that the waste problem is as much one of packaging as of recycling. Packaging design includes a significant quantity of internal packaging for some pieces of equipment. Does the Taoiseach have a view on that? Is he satisfied that all the waste material in his Department is recycled and that only inert material goes to waste?
For several years a contractor, whose name I cannot mention for security reasons but which is well known, has disposed of waste from my Department. The Department has considered other companies but stays with this one because it provides a secure facility for sorting paper and non-paper waste which the Department requires. I asked about this some time ago and was told no other company provides such an efficient service.
This company has been entirely reliable over a long period particularly in terms of the speed and conditions in which it disposes of the large volume of paper waste the Department generates. Department officials have been to the location to see how the paper is treated and are satisfied that it meets the laws, directives and regulations on this issue.
Empty toner cartridges are boxed and collected by a company called Ergo Services for recycling. As part of this arrangement Ergo Services donates a sum for each toner cartridge received for recycling to the Jack and Jill Children's Foundation, which works out well.
Like everyone, when I open something and dig through boxes and wrapping I wonder why it is necessary, particularly if the contents are wooden or something else unlikely to break. There is far too much packaging on most items. Some new retailers opt for less design and packaging. It must be possible to reduce much of the refuse on the streets outside stores and take-away outlets. Few shops seem to make a serious effort in this direction.
Dublin City Council, and other local authorities which now have enough staff, run campaigns to reduce waste. There must be a way to reduce it significantly once a means can be found to deal with packaging.
International Agreements.
Trevor Sargent
Question:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the Newfoundland and Labrador business partnerships which fall within his Department’s remit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8694/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the Newfoundland and Labrador business partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11934/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together. The Ireland Newfoundland partnership, previously named the Newfoundland and Labrador business partnership, was established on foot of a memorandum of understanding signed by the Government of Ireland and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The original agreement was signed by former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, in 1996, with the then Premier of Newfoundland, Brian Tobin. I reaffirmed that agreement, and it was again reaffirmed when Premier Danny Williams visited Dublin in July 2004.
The agreement derives from the very significant migratory ties between Ireland and Newfoundland which date back to the 17th century. Approximately 50% of the population of Newfoundland is of Irish origin. The migration stemmed mainly from the south-east corner of Ireland and the settlement took place within a 100 mile radius of St. John's, the capital city of Newfoundland.
The purpose of the agreement is to promote mutually advantageous co-operation between the two partners through government, industrial, business, educational and cultural activities. To give effect to the provisions of the memorandum of understanding, each government has established a board and small executive office.
The Ireland Newfoundland partnership board in Dublin was established in 2001 and is chaired by the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern. The executive office for this function was originally located within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, but since January 2004, it has been relocated under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach.
This change reflects the widening scope of the work of the partnership, which spans co-operation initiatives and activities in a wide range of sectors. The partnership has promoted several grant schemes to encourage joint research projects between third level institutions in marine science and engineering, IT, folklore, business studies, tourism and the arts. The arts and culture sector has been an area of strong interest with successful projects completed in music, literature, drama and art. The partnership also promotes trade missions to Newfoundland and has facilitated several Newfoundland missions to Ireland.
I was interested in asking this question when I looked at the Estimates for the Taoiseach's Department which indicated that €321,000 had been set aside for the Newfoundland and Labrador business partnership in 2005, which is an increase of 3% on 2004. I hear what the Taoiseach is saying about co-operation and the large proportion of the population of Irish extraction. What employment has been offered in Newfoundland by Irish companies establishing there? I understand that at 15%, it has one of the highest unemployment rates in Canada. Has the Government been able to offer employment in Ireland for people from Newfoundland and, if so, are there figures to indicate its success? This area of responsibility was transferred from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to the Department of the Taoiseach. Does the Taoiseach consider that is where the partnership belongs, is a review taking place or is there an indication it might revert to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment given the large trade factor involved in the agreement?
The location is just a matter of convenience for co-ordination and co-operation. Its location does not really matter because it is chaired by a Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the subhead could be in any Department. It straddles a number of Departments. Two officials are involved in the partnership on a full-time basis and we are trying to keep staffing levels to a minimum to keep it co-ordinated. It covers business and educational areas. Much work has been done on fisheries given its expertise in marine and research matters. From what I have read and seen, it has done much work that is valuable not only to Departments but to those involved in marine and fisheries matters.
There is a permanent exhibit on Newfoundland at the Waterford Museum of Treasures which was opened by President McAleese. There have been a number of trade missions which have helped a number of companies which have started to trade with each other. I do not have figures for the volume but I expect it is not enormous.
Is it worth the money?
In terms of what we are spending it is probably well worth the money. In fairness when the then Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, set it up, it was not just a money matter and was based on the cultural ties. Two marine technology agreements have been set up, there is film co-production between Ireland and Newfoundland and there have been technology transfers. We have saved the money we have spent many times over but the amount would not be enormous.
Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Memorial University in Newfoundland have a joint e-leanring course. There is also a joint masters in learning education technologies between the Institute of Technology Tralee and the university in Newfoundland. There have been scholarships and bursary schemes under seven awards, an Irish and Newfoundland poetry anthology has been published, and there are theatrical productions and many initiatives in trade and other areas. There is more two-way trade in the tourism business every year. While the numbers are not enormous, more people are taking an interest. That interest always existed but it has grown during the past decade.
It seems difficult to pinpoint exactly what gains there may be although I wish the partnership a fair wind. Is the Taoiseach aware that there is a strong co-operative movement in Newfoundland and Labrador and that the Government there and the federation of co-operatives provide financial assistance to the co-op sector in establishing and sustaining viable communities based on local ownership and democratic control? The province has a total of 70 co-ops with a membership in excess of 57,000.
Nowhere in the Taoiseach's reply about the partnership did he refer to that significant sector in Newfoundland and Labrador. Is there any co-op sector involvement in the partnership? Has this country learned anything from the Newfoundland-Labradorean approach to the co-operative sector, which is a significant factor in their economy? What lessons can be learned from their experience that can be applied to the Irish co-operative sector to enhance and sustain it as it is also a very important part of our economy?
I am sure there is a connection in the areas of fishing and the marine as a result of trade missions dealing with companies. Our co-operative sector has developed to a further stage as I am confident will be the case in Newfoundland and Labrador. Co-operatives have changed their status and become private companies. Most companies in the Irish food sector originated as co-operatives. In many cases their shareholders are the former members of the co-operative and the transition has been successful.
I suggest that an area of high unemployment such as Labrador could learn from what happened in Ireland rather than the other way round and there is co-operation in that regard. Half the population is of Irish descent and this is a good initiative considering the small amount of money involved. I am happy to build on what was begun by the former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton. He had good reasons for the initiative and it has proved successful. It has developed well and I am confident it will continue to do so. Much has happened within the space of a decade. I refer to the excellent connections between third level educational institutions, institutes of technology and in the area of the arts, which more than justify the reason for this partnership.
Regulatory Reform.
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in respect of the implementation of the recommendations of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8767/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date with regard to implementation of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11817/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in implementing the OECD recommendations on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11879/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if there is a deadline for implementation of the recommendations of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11935/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, together.
Considerable progress has been achieved since the publication in 2001 of the OECD report on regulatory reform in Ireland. Many of the OECD recommendations related to specific sectoral issues and appropriate Ministers with responsibility for those sectors report progress to the House.
A key recommendation of the OECD report was the development of a national policy on better regulation. As Deputies will be aware this recommendation was acted upon with the publication in January last year of the Government White Paper, Regulating Better. The White Paper sets out six core principles of better regulation and a detailed action plan to translate these principles into how we design, implement and review legislation and regulations. Accordingly, the White Paper contains the thrust of the Government's efforts on regulatory reform rather than the original OECD reports. Key actions include the introduction of regulatory impact analysis, RIA, currently being piloted; improvements to our approach to sectoral regulation; greater clarity and accessibility of regulation especially by means of Statute Law revision and a renewed drive on red tape.
The OECD report made long-term strategic recommendations that do not particularly lend themselves to fixed timetables. However, the White Paper gave a number of time-bound commitments on a range of actions. Four specific actions include the establishment of the better regulation group, the development of consultation guidelines, the piloting of regulatory impact analysis and the updating of the Statute Book.
A better regulation group comprised of senior officials was established to oversee implementation of the White Paper and promote better quality regulation across the public service. To date, the group has met four times and has focused on a number of better regulation issues, including aspects of the enterprise strategy group's report relating to regulatory reform and a proposal to map the regulatory framework in Ireland. The group has also held initial discussions with representatives of both IBEC and ICTU and will engage in regular dialogue with these and other organisations as necessary on better regulation issues.
A central commitment in the White Paper was the development of guidelines to promote better quality public consultation. A sub-group of the better regulation group was formed in 2004 to oversee the development of these guidelines which are intended to act as a practical resource for Departments, public bodies and any other organisations that consult stakeholders. They are also designed to help those interested in participating and responding to consultations. The guidelines are close to completion and are expected to be published shortly.
In addition to these developments, my Department established a steering group to oversee the piloting of regulatory impact analysis, RIA, in Departments. Five Departments and offices are piloting RIA and are represented on the steering group which is chaired by my Department and also includes a representative from the committee for public management research. Based on the experience of piloting RIA, the group will make recommendations to Government on the most appropriate form of RIA for the Irish context. The piloting process is close to completion and it is hoped the final report will be published in the next two to three months.
RIA is a tool which contributes to the quality of regulation by ensuring regulatory proposals are subject to robust analysis prior to being brought to Government. It involves formal consultation in advance of regulation, better quantification of impacts, including costs, structured consideration of alternatives and greater focus on compliance and enforcement. RIA ensures the social and economic implications of regulations are considered as well as the burdens on small and medium enterprises. By incorporating the consideration of a wide range of impacts, it helps to ensure regulations strike the right balance between the need to protect the interests of the citizen and consumer and meeting the needs of business.
My Department has also made substantial progress, working in conjunction with the statute law revision unit in the Office of the Attorney General, to progress the commitments in the White Paper in respect of statute law revision. The Attorney General and I initiated a review of all legislation that predates the foundation of the State and Deputies will recall that in April 2004, I announced a public consultation process on the repeal of more than 100 Acts. The Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill 2004 was subsequently published in November 2004. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, is sponsoring this important legislation which passed through Second Stage in the Seanad on 13 April. The Bill will repeal almost 100 Acts that are spent or no longer of any practical use. A further round of consultation is under way and may lead to the inclusion of additional Acts before the Bill completes its passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas. This is an important first step in delivering on our commitment. The next stage is the identification of the pre-1922 Acts which are still in force and the development of a strategy to repeal and re-enact these in a modern, consolidated form.
Better regulation remains a significant and important component of the public service modernisation agenda and considerable progress has been achieved in implementing the White Paper, Regulating Better, and the recommendations of the OECD report on regulatory reform.
I do not know how long the author laboured over that answer but one would hardly get away with it during Leaders' Questions. To translate it into understandable English from a business perspective requires some thought.
Since 1999, 11 regulators have been appointed, each of whom has built his or her own little empire in respect of the appropriate area of responsibility. Does the Taoiseach consider the time has come for the appointment of one powerful office of regulation with the capacity to pool resources of knowledge and expertise and which would carry a much greater degree of accountability? Does he believe this is a concept that should be followed?
Ireland is losing out from a business perspective. The report commissioned for the Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise and Small Business observed it takes an average of four days to set up a new business in the United States while the figure for Europe is 38 days. In addition, the cost is much higher in Europe than in the United States. The Dutch authorities have undertaken a detailed analysis on reduction of regulation for business in the EU and its findings are important for Ireland. The Department of the Taoiseach estimates the cost to business of compliance with existing legislation is approximately €4 billion per annum. According to the Government White Paper on regulation, 15% of that burden is avoidable. That is €600 million a year. In the context of a reduction in regulation and making it easier for business to do business in the national interest, does the Taoiseach consider that the Government is doing enough to achieve that? Does he see a role for the Department of Finance and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in focusing on a real reduction in regulation, so that businesses can find it tangibly and demonstrably easier to set up companies and do business without having such a burden pressing down on them? Would there be value in that, given that, according to the Department of the Taoiseach, €600 million could be saved a year?
When does the Taoiseach expect the introduction of proposals to put in place a modern framework for pharmacies? The situation in pharmacy is causing a great deal of concern for qualified people and for those who wish to enter that business.
The regulatory impact analysis and the whole question of regulations are not the most interesting of topics, but they are hugely important. Deputy Kenny is correct about Europe, in that the system of bureaucracy and legislation in Europe is very different from that in the United States, where it is very simple. In OECD terms, we are considered not to be a very highly regulated country, and we should keep it that way.
Irrespective of whether the figure of €600 million is right, the analysis my Department undertook was based on what happens in other countries. The cost of regulation is considered to be somewhere between 2.5% and 4.5% of GDP. Approximately 15 % of that is considered to be not necessary. Taking that in the Irish context, my Department took those figures of 2.5% and 15% of that, and it worked out as €600 million. That was the calculation. It is crude enough, but the figure is probably as accurate as it would be if it were calculated any other way. In 1999, we were one of the early countries to put ourselves forward to the OECD to get engaged in this area. The White Paper and the various processes that have developed very much follow what is happening in Europe. I hope we are ahead in some areas; perhaps we are not so in others. The whole concept is that we do not do anything any more without checking whether there is another way or a simpler way of doing it, or whether we need to do it at all. Might a measure be just red tape or bureaucracy?
To answer Deputy Kenny's question, there are many things we can do. Much of what I read out in my reply covers the detailed work being done. There are some really good officials in my Department working in this area and interacting with business. It is extraordinary how things have moved forward in recent years. The position used to be that nobody was too interested in the subject. Now, chambers of commerce, small and medium-sized businesses, the Competition Authority, IBEC and other bodies are all very interested in this area, because they see the added value involved. People were recently getting excited about the issue of the companies Acts and regulations for directors, which was an interesting debate.
The issue of the super-regulator or combining the regulators is now being discussed. The enterprise strategy group with its publication last year of "Ahead of the Curve" recommended merging a number of regulators to create a larger, multisectoral regulatory body. A group in my Department considered that recommendation, and it has been tasked with implementing it. The group does not think a super-regulator is the way to go, because it would cover such different areas. It believes that, before we set up any new regulators, we should try to match existing regulators with any new focus taken, rather than simply adding to them. The White Paper recognises the value of having an ongoing assessment of the possibilities of rationalising the current system. It accepts that it would be beneficial to strengthen the ties between the regulators, the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs and the Competition Authority. The group is not ruling out the whole lot. A super regulator approach would lead to certain cost savings, for example, the availing of shared services and expertise and, according to the group, this would make sense. However, given the disparate nature of the functions carried out by independent regulators, from the licensing of travel agents to the building of new power stations, the synergies could be overstated. Therefore it does not agree with the Enterprise Strategy Group and regards its view as over-simplistic. However, it does not suggest that we should keep adding to them but that we should try to match them.
The debate regarding the number of regulators misses the point. The issue is the quality of decision-making by regulators. Are we getting better outcomes in key regulated areas? If not, why not? Are regulators fulfilling their functions, both in respect of market players and consumers? Have they sufficient powers to carry out their mandates? Can they strengthen those powers of sanction? Can we limit recourse to the courts by parties wishing to frustrate regulatory decisions? This happens a lot in that if somebody is not happy with a decision they want to fight it in court. This seems contradictory to the idea of a regulator listening to everybody and coming up with a decision. One does not get far if such a decision is challenged in court.
All of these issues have been examined and it is my Department's view that we should try to tidy up the system and not put new regulators in place unless absolutely necessary. One must rationalise where possible. A super regulator would result in too much power resting with one organisation. The Better Regulation Group feels that we would be dealing with the issue of an overly powerful super regulator in five or ten years' time, and I tend to agree with this view.
With regard to other questions raised, there are literally mountains of analysis and material. The model that has been piloted in five Departments is almost finished and will be rolled out in other Departments. Discipline is then required to ensure that people, before jumping to the call of an organisation with regard to new legislation, think in terms of the RIA as to whether the legislation or regulation is needed. They must consider the cost and burden for everybody, not just in terms of business and industry. They must decide whether it is necessary to update legislation.
Europe is different to the US in that countries keep filling their Statute Books with complex legislation which costs more and, in many cases, does not solve the problem. This view is held everywhere. I am not saying that legislation does not need to be updated in some instances, but costs are involved and it affects modern business. There is endless data, some of which I have read, which proves this issue.
It is on days such as this that I am glad I do not have to write a cover piece for tomorrow's newspapers. It is hard to see much colour in issues such as waste paper, business partnerships in Newfoundland and Labrador and regulation.
I would like to address the OECD recommendations and tangible matters such as complete liberalisation of the pub trade, the elimination of restrictions on economic freedoms for pharmacists and seven or eight other issues. As distinct from theory, has any of this been done? I have a cutting from one of the national newspapers of 25 July 2001. The headline reads, "Coalition To Abolish Curbs on Pubs and Pharmacies Within a Year".
The Deputy should confine himself to questions because we are rapidly running out of time.
We are not running out of time because of me. I am confining myself to questions.
It is not appropriate to quote at Question Time and this is a long-standing rule of the House.
I was only showing the headline and not quoting from it. The Tánaiste committed to the abolition of such curbs on 25 July 2001. Four years have elapsed and very little has been achieved in any of the areas relating to the OECD's tangible recommendations. Rather than having the Tánaiste torture him about deregulation and multiple terminals at Dublin Airport, does the Taoiseach not believe we would be better off if his Ministers implemented some of the OECD recommendations on deregulation? Does the Taoiseach believe it would be possible to leave the terminal problem at Dublin Airport if adequate space were provided to the regulator to deal with the consumer issues that arise?
I was asked about the pharmacy area, which was mentioned by Deputy Rabbitte along with other areas. I have a brief note which I can give the House. A number of these are implemented or in the process of implementation. The Competition Authority has made considerable progress in the non-life insurance market, the banking sector and architectural and engineering professions. The document on the legal profession was published in February and is now open for consultation. Considerable consultation is ongoing between the Bar Council and the Law Society in trying to come to an agreement on the final report which is due in a few months.
Even the Taoiseach will have reached——
The Taoiseach should be allowed to reply without interruption.
At what age did the Taoiseach say he would retire? He will have reached 60 before we do anything.
We are all right. We will get there yet. The Tánaiste has carefully considered the complex issues raised by the pharmacy review group. The memorandum outlines her plans to consolidate and update the existing legislation to provide for the safe and effective delivery of pharmaceutical services to all citizens in a comprehensive manageable and robust legislative framework. In particular it will address the education, training, registration and fitness to practice provisions for pharmacists and will incorporate recommendations from the pharmacy review group as necessary. That memorandum is being revised on foot of observations received and it is expected to come to Government shortly.
Without going through them all individually the Competition Authority expects to complete them all by the end of this year. It has already completed six. The professions involved are construction, medical, legal, engineers, architects, veterinary surgeons, solicitors, barristers, medical practitioners, dentists and optometrists. These will all be completed by the end of the year. A significant body of work is already finished. Each one of those areas raises its own problems with particular professional groups. They have all been challenged in the work that has been done by the Competition Authority and by the pharmacy review group.